Assemblyman Carl DeMaio warns that a California bill, AB 2624, would muzzle independent investigators and citizen journalists who expose fraud, using recent reports of hospice and daycare scams as context and naming Nick Shirley as a target of what DeMaio calls the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

Is California Targeting Investigative Journalists? Assemblyman DeMaio Sounds the Alarm

Republican voices in Sacramento are pushing back hard after AB 2624 advanced, arguing the measure doesn’t protect free people so much as it shields institutions from scrutiny. The bill is presented as a response to threats against immigrant-serving groups, but critics say its language would let organizations demand removal of recordings made in public. That raises alarms for anyone who believes citizen reporting and watchdog work are essential to holding power accountable.

Nick Shirley built a reputation exposing fraud in Minnesota by documenting examples on camera and bringing attention to large-scale abuse of public programs. His work in Minnesota led to major investigations and indictments tied to child nutrition and daycare programs, and he later turned his attention to alleged hospice scams in California. Supporters say his methods are straightforward reporting; opponents claim they can be intimidating. The real question for many is whether lawmakers are responding to bad actors or trying to silence inconvenient scrutiny.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio has framed AB 2624 as an effort to criminalize a style of citizen journalism that often relies on video captured in public places. He argues the bill would allow organizations to demand content removal and impose fines on those who post material online, even if the material shows taxpayer-funded wrongdoing. That concern has a practical angle: if watchdogs can be silenced after the fact, many abuses could go unnoticed and uncorrected. For conservatives focused on transparency, that tradeoff is unacceptable.

Proponents of AB 2624 describe it as a public safety tool to shield vulnerable communities from harassment and threats. The stated intent is to protect immigrants and advocacy centers from violent intimidation or coercion, and lawmakers sympathetic to the bill insist it targets behavior rather than journalism. Still, critics say the bill’s broad wording sweeps in footage recorded in public and removes clear protections for independent investigators acting in the public interest. That tension is at the heart of the debate.

Beyond abstract principles, there are concrete examples fueling Republican outrage. Recently, authorities uncovered a multimillion-dollar hospice fraud operation that allegedly used stolen identities to bill government insurance programs. Twenty-one people were charged and several arrests followed as the investigation unfolded, highlighting how complex and lucrative healthcare-related scams can be. For those who follow fraud reporting closely, such cases are why independent scrutiny matters and why many fear hamstringing it.

The bill’s authors, including Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, have framed it as necessary for immigrant safety, but opponents point to political connections and timing. DeMaio and like-minded critics see this as an attempt to blunt the impact of citizen journalists who shine light on waste and abuse. The argument is not that harassment is acceptable, but that the legislation’s reach could be used to censor legitimate exposure of corruption and mismanagement.

See how California has actually been stopping fraud for years as opposed to whatever Nick is doing:

DeMaio issued a forceful public statement calling out what he views as a targeted effort to silence watchdogs and protect left-leaning nonprofits. He said the bill is designed to intimidate citizen journalists and prevent them from revealing misuse of taxpayer dollars. For conservatives who prioritize limited government and accountability, that rhetoric resonates because it frames the law as protecting political allies rather than protecting citizens.

California Democrats are trying to intimidate citizen watchdog journalists and protect waste and fraud happening in far-Left-wing NGOs. AB 2624 can only be described as the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ — a bill designed to silence citizen journalists exposing fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars. Instead of fixing the fraud problems being uncovered, Sacramento politicians are trying to shut down the people exposing them.

DeMaio doubled down with a constitutional argument, warning that if AB 2624 becomes law the message to every journalist will be clear: expose corruption and you will be punished. He explicitly called the bill “an unconstitutional direct attack on transparency and the First Amendment” and urged opponents to defeat it. Those words echo a broader conservative worry that free speech and investigative reporting are increasingly under pressure from well-connected interests.

Those who monitor fraud say the problem persists across state lines and in multiple sectors, from childcare programs to healthcare billing schemes. Independent investigations—whether by traditional reporters or citizen journalists—often spark official probes and reforms, and eliminating or chilling that work risks allowing more abuse to continue. For lawmakers, the challenge is to protect people from real threats without creating powerful tools for censorship.